RESUMEN

UNLABELLED: Transplant patients are at increased risk of developing dyslipidemia, which contributes to coronary artery disease and cardiovascular events. The purpose of this study was to explore documented adverse effects of liver transplant recipients receiving lipid-lowering therapies. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 69 liver transplant patients was conducted to evaluate the incidence of adverse effects, especially rhabdomyolysis and liver function abnormalities, in liver transplant patients treated with a lipid lowering agent (LLA). Data were collected from the time of initiation of LLA to 12 months later, looking at the type, dose, and duration of LLA, concurrent cytochrome P450 inhibitors, immunosuppression used, and laboratory parameters. RESULTS: For HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor therapy, simvistatin was used in five (7.8%) patients, pravastatin in 40 (62.5%), fluvastatin in one (1.6%), atorvastatin in five (7.8%), and lovastatin in three (4.7%). Gemfibrozil, a fibric acid derivative, was employed as monotherapy in 10 (15.6%) of patients. There were five patients who received combination therapy with a fibric acid derivative, four (80%) with gemfibrozil + pravastatin, and one (20%) with gemfibrozil + simvastatin. Six patients studied had adverse effects, five (7.2%) with myalgia and one (1.4%) with myopathy. LLA monotherapy with either pravastatin or atorvastatin was used in these patients. The five patients with myalgia were on concurrent therapy with cyclosporin, and the patient with myopathy was on concurrent cyclosporin + diltiazem therapy, both of which are P450 inhibitors. One out of 23 patients on a non-immunosuppressant P450 inhibitor developed adverse effects. No significant elevation of alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, or alkaline phosphatase was noted in any patient. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was a general tolerability with a low incidence of adverse events, no incidence of severe complications, and no alterations in liver function tests in the study population with the use of LLA.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To provide current information on pharmacoeconomic outcomes in transplantation for the past 6 years. METHODS: An extensive literature search was undertaken using PubMed and other authenticated Internet sources. Key words used to elicit pertinent studies were "pharmacoeconomics," "transplantation," "cost-effectiveness," "cost-benefit," "cost-minimization" and "cost-utility" analyses. Studies included in the review contain updated pharmacoeconomic data generated during the past 6 years on economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes. These data are used to describe and analyze the cost of drug therapy used in transplantation. RESULTS: Background information is included in the review to provide a context from which to evaluate new study material. Data extracted from the studies include significant findings and study limitations. Data were stratified into understanding pharmacoeconomic methods and their application to transplantation, maintenance and induction therapies, and management of and costs associated with adverse events and quality-of-life issues. CONCLUSIONS: Continued evolution of pharmacoeconomic analysis is needed so that optimal care can be provided in the most cost-effective manner. Pharmacoeconomic study, done rationally and logically, is an indispensable tool in determining optimal transplantation regimens.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the quality of life (QoL) and functional recuperation of laproscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) vs. open donor nephrectomy (ODN) donors. This study utilized the SF-36 health survey, single-item health-related quality of life (HRQOL) score, and a functional assessment questionnaire ('Donor Survey'). METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to 100 LDN and 50 ODN donors. These donors were patients whose procedures were performed at The University Hospital and The Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio. RESULTS: A total of 46 (46%) LDN and 21 (42%) ODN donors returned the completed surveys. The demographics of the two groups were similar. LDN patients reported a more rapid return to 100% normal health (69 vs. 116 d; p = 0.24), part-time work (21.9 vs. 23.2 d; p = 0.09), and necessitated fewer physician office visits post-operative (2.8 vs. 4.4; p = 0.01). ODN patients reported shorter duration of oral pain medication use (13.4 vs. 7.2 d; p = 0.02). However, a greater number of ODN patients reported post-surgical chronic pain (3 vs. 6; p < 0.05) and hernia (0 vs. 2; p = 0.19). The overall QoL for both groups was comparable with the general USA population. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the decisions of many kidney transplant centers to adopt LDN programs as standard of care.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The burgeoning clinical discipline and growth of organ transplantation has resulted in an expansion in the number of healthcare specialists to support clinical care and research. The past 10 yrs have seen a dramatic increase in the number of immunosuppressive agents and other medications used in transplantation, resulting in more complex medication regimens and greater potential for interactions, adverse effects and increased costs. PURPOSE: To determine how transplant pharmacists are being integrated into transplant clinical practice. Transplant centres were identified through UNOS Transplant Administrators Committee list serve. A survey was then distributed via e-mail to 159 individuals representing 118 solid organ transplant centres. RESULTS: Forty-one (35%) of the 118 centres responded, with 36 evaluable surveys. Of the 36 centres, 28 (78%) had transplant pharmacist support and eight did not have a pharmacist dedicated to transplant (two of the eight were recruiting). A majority of the respondents had multi-organ transplant responsibilities. Eighty-six per cent of pharmacists were involved in kidney transplant, 71% in liver, 50% in pancreas, 25% in heart, and 7% in lung. Pharmacist salaries were most often funded by a department of pharmacy (74%), followed by college of pharmacy (12%), transplant centre (8%) and department of surgery (6%). Almost all of the pharmacist's clinical practice time focused on post-transplant care (99%). The average percentage of the pharmacist's time was: 43% inpatient, 15% outpatient, 14% research, 6% other transplant related, and 22% non-transplant related. Of the 28 pharmacists, 25 had a PharmD degree, two a BS and one had a PhD in Pharmacy. The average number of organs transplanted among the responding centres was 99 kidneys, 45 livers, 28 pancreas, 14 heart, and 26 lungs. The number of transplants did not differ between the programmes with pharmacist clinical support vs. those without designated pharmacist support. CONCLUSION: The survey indicates that many solid organ transplant centres have incorporated transplant pharmacists into the multidisciplinary transplant clinical team. Transplant pharmacists are funded most often by the hospital pharmacy. Most transplant pharmacists spend the majority of their time in clinical practice, but also play a key role in research.

Asunto(s)